astcell

I am on my 3rd D100. My first one has a bad pixel near the center. The best way to check for a bad pixel is to remove the lens, set the shutter speed to Bulb, and fire it into a bright light. Of course the result will be total whitewash. I then made a negative image of it in Photoshop and the dead pixel was right there. Even dust would not hold back the light form such an exposure.

 

The bad pixel will also be sharp, whereas dust is blurry since it is not ON the ccd, but rather on the cover ABOVE it.

 

To see the dust, focus beyond the CCD so that you can see the reflection. I had dust for days and cound not find it, then I relaxed and focused away and spotted it in a second!

I want the Sigma 400/5.6AF, or the Tokina,...anything! Nikon has no fixed 400mm lens that costs less than a small car. There are 80-400 lenses out there but I personally would go with a fixed lens over a zoom lens if I could not find a Nikon equivalent. Make sure you get the ED, SD, APO, or whatever abbreviation they use to point out the better glass, so you do not get a lens like your G lens. Good luck!

The 12-24mm is an f/4, not f/3.4. That may make up your mind for you. I too want this lens but I worry about the G portion of it, I really like aperture rings, and I wish it was full frame so I can use it on my F5. Who knows, the DX lens may go away like the AF lenses for the F3. Duds! Then again there is a 13/5.6 that I can get chipped, hmmmm....

The 45mm got outstanding reviews for quality ande sharpness. I the past the Nikon 50/1.8 AiS was the king. After using AF for so long I wonder if I can go back to MF again!

I owned one, paid $3000 for it, to collect. It was from Japan. Then Nikon announced that they were going to make more for the US Market. Nikon went back on their word that the camera would remain rare. I used it, then sold it on Ebay for $2400. I advise not to pay over $2000 for it in ay shape.

I view UV and Skylight filters as see through lens caps. They keep the front element as nice as can be. Lenses with the tiniest chip in the front element, even to the point of having zero effect on the image, sell for 1/10th their value on Ebay just for that reason.

 

I would only use one filter at a time.

 

Now if I was shooting something in extreme detail, small aperture, one of a kind image, I may even take off the UV filter just for that one shot.

The last wedding I shot was my first one I shot all digital, the results were fantastic. I used a 24-120 for 80% of the shots and my 85/1.4 for the rest. I had a 20mm but never used it, nor my 80-400. The 85 proved invaluable for the candlelight scenes where the 1.4 gave me 1/45th sec at ISO640. I want the 60 Micro for shots of the rings and flowers, I hope to buy that lens next.

I have not noticed a shutter lag at all, but the AF is slower than on the F5. If you can get the item in focus quickly, your problems are over!

My 85/1.4 felt as fast and accurate as the 85/1.8, but I decided on the 1.4 because of the feel and heftiness of it.

I thought about the 24-120 AF-S G lens, but I really don't want to lose the aperture ring....

I wish the lens just snapped on like it does on my 80-400. Slip it on, give it 1/8th turn, and there you go. If anyone finds a solution for this please post the details!

Been there. Supporting Nikon and Canon is like supporting two ex-wives. I had an F2A and N2000 on the Nikon side then I got the Canon T90. Later I had the EOS A2 with 35-350 and a Nikon F5 with a few lenses. I gets tough. I opted for Nikon in the long run for personal reasons. I'd take an EOS 1Ds in a second. If you decide you want a fast 85mm lens yes Canon has a 1.2 while Nikon has the 1.4, I find the Canon focuses slower while the Nikon appears stronger. There are plusses and minuses all throughout. It's the Grass is Always Greener syndrome if you ask me! I have traded canera gear like crazy. I traded my Nikon F4 for a Leica M6, then to Canon and Nikon, thought about Hassie. I wish I could afford every camera system at once and I can choose what I want based on how I feel that day!

You can tell if it is a bad pixel or not. Take off your lens, set your shutter to bulb, and fire an exposure for maybe 10 seconds in broad daylight. I had this problem, and I still had a green spot in the middle. Bad pixel. New camera replacement received from Nikon.

The website is hacked and I cannot create an account to download it.

My 1GB Viking cards work fine.

Great idea! In fact many times I wish I could find someone to go shooting with to help pass the day.

For 2 lenses at $500 or les, go with the 24-120 (or 24-85AF-S) and the 70-300. I have the 80-400 and have used my wife's 70-300 with great results. It is a little low on the focus but the results are tack sharp!

I had the 300/4AF and the 300/2.8AFS. I prefer the 2.8 because it snaps into focus. The results at 2.8 are beautiful. Mind you now I used to carry the 400/2.8 and shoot it hand held. Once you play with the bright long glass it's hard to ever go back to CAT lenses.

I had the 24-120 when it came out about 6 years ago, and still love it. With digital it is my main lens. When I heard the new lens was out I was ready to jump at buying it.

 

But....

 

It has no aperture ring. Sorry Nikon, I want my aperture ring!

When I use a flash the results are always underexposed. I set the flash to +1.0EV right off the bat. What ever happenned to the 18% gray that the meters wanted to make things?

I was considering the 70-200 lens, especially since it was AF-S and I could use a doubler on it. But it did not have an aperture ring! I got the 80-400 last Octover and love it. It has an aperture ring so it will work with my FM should I need to. I have owned all the flavors of 80-200 lenses, and love the 80-400. The lack of aperture ring knocked the 70-200 out of the proverbial ring, I will not consider buying it, sorry.

Since I have firmware upgrade 2.0 I feel that all my flash images are

heavy blue. I set the white balance to Flash and I am fine, but if I

use the flash and have white balance set to A I may as well be asking

subjet to hold their breath and dim the lights. I took the camera to

Nikon and they gave me a new camera. But the new camera is the

same! I have seen results from other D100 cameras and they look the

same. Funny, my Nikon 990 looks fine, and my first D100 with

firmware 1.1 was fine. What gives?

I am going to buy the AC adapter so I can properly clean the CCD

sensor. I admit I have cleaned it in the last by putting the mode on

Manual and the shutter speed to Bulb and pressing the shutter

button. This gives me a few seconds to clean the sensor with a

blower.

 

Will this harm the CCDs in any way since they are sensitive to light

at this time?

I have had three D100s so far. The first was version 1.1 and perfect in every way, except there was a dead pixel in the center of the image, so I replaced it. The replacement has version 2.0 software, which I liked because it makes a wav file of the sound clips I add. That camera had a terrible blue cast and underexposure. Nikon swapped it out for me. My third camera has less blue cast but does underexpose. The built in flash is useless, but the SB-80DX makes the camera shine once again. So to ake a long answer even longer, yes, it appears underexposed.